![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Once again, New York Times, I would like to make this clear for you.
This is news.
This is NOT.
How to tell the difference? The first article is timely and new, relating pressing information that may impact a major branch of government, political parties, and one very famous family. The second could be shortened to "HOLY SHIT, CHICKS GO TO MOVIES?" and lose nothing of substance.
I am not kidding. "Holy shit, females buy movie tickets and some times make plans to see movies with each other holy shit!" is only news to people who have been working the 18-24 straight, white male demographic so hard for so long that they forgot that there are necessarily a) men both younger and older than that demographic; b) there are gays at all ages; and c) WOMEN EXIST. They have money these days, too. And they like movies. Not just shitty art movies that they have to exchange blow jobs for in order to get the SO to go, but, like, big movies! (The token resistance to Sex and the City was a woman opting for--wait fo it--a period piece set in India.)
I fucking hate Sex and the City. But because of this article, I hope it makes a trillion dollars in its opening weekend. I hope it sells more tickets than Indiana Jones, Prince Caspian, Speed Racer, and Iron Man combined. (Jesus Christ, in May alone every big event movie has had a male star.) Maybe they'll take a goddamned look at the demographics and start making some "chick" movies I do like. Or maybe they'll just look at the ticket sales for Iron Man and recognize that sticking a credibly awesome, mostly independent and strong-willed female character into movies is a decent way to draw this strange, elusive creature known as woman into the goddamned theaters.
No? Too much to hope for?
This is news.
This is NOT.
How to tell the difference? The first article is timely and new, relating pressing information that may impact a major branch of government, political parties, and one very famous family. The second could be shortened to "HOLY SHIT, CHICKS GO TO MOVIES?" and lose nothing of substance.
I am not kidding. "Holy shit, females buy movie tickets and some times make plans to see movies with each other holy shit!" is only news to people who have been working the 18-24 straight, white male demographic so hard for so long that they forgot that there are necessarily a) men both younger and older than that demographic; b) there are gays at all ages; and c) WOMEN EXIST. They have money these days, too. And they like movies. Not just shitty art movies that they have to exchange blow jobs for in order to get the SO to go, but, like, big movies! (The token resistance to Sex and the City was a woman opting for--wait fo it--a period piece set in India.)
I fucking hate Sex and the City. But because of this article, I hope it makes a trillion dollars in its opening weekend. I hope it sells more tickets than Indiana Jones, Prince Caspian, Speed Racer, and Iron Man combined. (Jesus Christ, in May alone every big event movie has had a male star.) Maybe they'll take a goddamned look at the demographics and start making some "chick" movies I do like. Or maybe they'll just look at the ticket sales for Iron Man and recognize that sticking a credibly awesome, mostly independent and strong-willed female character into movies is a decent way to draw this strange, elusive creature known as woman into the goddamned theaters.
No? Too much to hope for?
